Agreed, except for the phrase, "Today's theory of evolution still seems to be the best description of the facts we've uncovered in the fossil records...". The fossil record is more distinct because of what hasn't been uncovered than because of what has (which, I believe, was one of the points of the initial article). In that sense, using the fossil record as one of the tenets of evolution is weak. Evolution may be regarded as the "best" theory, but this is due more to the lack of any other theory than to the merits of supporting evidence. This is never a good basis to put so much stock in a theory, or even elevate its status to "proven". That's like believing the moon is made of green cheese for lack of any other theory. Which begs the question, why are people so die-hard about a theory whose basis is so tenuous?
Agreed, except for the phrase, "Today's theory of evolution still seems to be the best description of the facts we've uncovered in the fossil records...". The fossil record is more distinct because of what hasn't been uncovered than because of what has (which, I believe, was one of the points of the initial article). In that sense, using the fossil record as one of the tenets of evolution is weak. Evolution may be regarded as the "best" theory, but this is due more to the lack of any other theory than to the merits of supporting evidence. This is never a good basis to put so much stock in a theory, or even elevate its status to "proven". That's like believing the moon is made of green cheese for lack of any other theory. Which begs the question, why are people so die-hard about a theory whose basis is so tenuous?
Mean MrMustard
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2001
- 3,144
- 10
- 81
Yeah, but all of science is full of holes. The point is it's the most probable compared to the rest of the THEORIES. Science doesn't explain everything. It should be used as building blocks for other discoveries. At any given point, nothing will be ironclad.
Of course, evolution theory has holes. But that doesn't mean the new discoveries won't be made.
Says who?
So you're basing something that we don't know.. off something we don't know?
Sounds great.
Is it just me, or do the majority of creationist spend their time arguing that the theory of evolution is flawed while the majority of scientists are busy off trying to explain the beginning of life?
As opposed to all the things we know about GOD which are TRUE (and not mere faith)...
As opposed to all the things we know about GOD which are TRUE (and not mere faith)...
Do you remember when the Earth was flat? No? Well that's because now we know its not. But 600 years ago we "knew" it was flat. I believe that a lot of what we think we "know" is incorrect.
Oh and for those of you who don't believe in evolution because you don't know how life started i offer this. If you take large quanities of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and helium and allow them to mix they can create a very basic enzyme. That may not sound like much, but give it eons and eons and eons and eons and eons and you could end up with us.
Oh and for those of you who don't believe in evolution because you don't know how life started i offer this. If you take large quanities of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and helium and allow them to mix they can create a very basic enzyme. That may not sound like much, but give it eons and eons and eons and eons and eons and you could end up with us.
Exactly.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't scientists made HUGE strides into trying to create life in a petri dish in the last few years?
I read an article not long ago that we could be very close to being able to do just that, maybe 10 years. That is quite incredible.
Damn, I wish I could find the article.
Ah, here it is
That is so cool!
There is a very good explanation behind how evolution can create eyes, ears and wings. Comes from this book. Ill paraphrase the short version.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060958502/qid=1082776336/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5964119-9796900?v=glance&s=books
Eye: A common ancestor to all vertebrates is the lancelet. You really need to see a picture of it to understand, but on its underside there is a certain patch of light sensitive cells. They are not eyes, they are just patches of cells that are light sensitive. The more sensitive it is, the better off the organism is, and thus there was selection for sensitivity. But because of its peculiar shape, (again, you really need to see the picture), vertebrate eyes are stuck with the receptor cells in front of the retina, not behind. This is very, very bad design. But its what we're stuck with because our eye is likely derived from that very patch of cells. Cant remember if there was the same book, but there was also an evolutionary computer simulation (nothing new, theyve been doing it for years), and without any direction by the programmer itself, the eye as we see it today was slowly selected for over the thousands of generations. Vast oversimplification, but if you understand it, its not hard to imagine where the eye came from.
Ears are in fact not adaptations, but exaptations. Very hard to just select those 3 bones in nature, but theyre derived from the jawbones of reptiles, which they use to sense vibrations. Give it a couple hundred million years of selection, and youve got ears.
Cant find the section on wings at the moment, but its similar to ear, an exaptation.
I get so sick of hearing the SAME arguments from creationists. If you think there are no transitiionary fossils, you are DEAD WRONG, and it is not open to interepretation. There are plenty.
Creationists are still arguing with darwin, but you know what? Darwin was over a hundred years ago! Evolution has come a LONG way since darwin, but some people dont seem to understand this.
Seriously, if you do not believe evolution is real, then you need to read more about it, and then you will understand why its so blatantly obvious that its true.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060958502/qid=1082776336/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5964119-9796900?v=glance&s=books
Eye: A common ancestor to all vertebrates is the lancelet. You really need to see a picture of it to understand, but on its underside there is a certain patch of light sensitive cells. They are not eyes, they are just patches of cells that are light sensitive. The more sensitive it is, the better off the organism is, and thus there was selection for sensitivity. But because of its peculiar shape, (again, you really need to see the picture), vertebrate eyes are stuck with the receptor cells in front of the retina, not behind. This is very, very bad design. But its what we're stuck with because our eye is likely derived from that very patch of cells. Cant remember if there was the same book, but there was also an evolutionary computer simulation (nothing new, theyve been doing it for years), and without any direction by the programmer itself, the eye as we see it today was slowly selected for over the thousands of generations. Vast oversimplification, but if you understand it, its not hard to imagine where the eye came from.
Ears are in fact not adaptations, but exaptations. Very hard to just select those 3 bones in nature, but theyre derived from the jawbones of reptiles, which they use to sense vibrations. Give it a couple hundred million years of selection, and youve got ears.
Cant find the section on wings at the moment, but its similar to ear, an exaptation.
I get so sick of hearing the SAME arguments from creationists. If you think there are no transitiionary fossils, you are DEAD WRONG, and it is not open to interepretation. There are plenty.
Creationists are still arguing with darwin, but you know what? Darwin was over a hundred years ago! Evolution has come a LONG way since darwin, but some people dont seem to understand this.
Seriously, if you do not believe evolution is real, then you need to read more about it, and then you will understand why its so blatantly obvious that its true.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
That is cool. To me it seems that life, and therefore evolution, may be a natural tendency of the universe as a result of entropy. Life exists as a catalyst for molecules to find lower states of energy, to bleed off the enormous amounts of energy imputed by the Sun. The requirements for life may be fairly specific, but where they exist, life may be probable. Given this, life may be far more abundant thean we think.
Without a doubt. Leave it to Human Beans to believe they're the center of the entire universe, LOL. The mere idea is comical.
I mean... you see those pics from Hubble, a mere fraction of the sky, with hundreds .. if not thousands.. if visable galaxies, and you think Earth is the only planet that sparked life? hahahaha......... right.
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I call shennanigins.
Not that I am a figure of authority, or wait this is the internet so eveybody is an expert on everything!!! Especially so on AToT!!
Anyhow, when I was an undergrad getting my biology degree I did some research on something called the Cambrian/Pre-cambrian Explosion which is essentially the 'missing' fossil record. Called an 'explosion' because there is a point where there are few fossils then there is a point where there is a lot of fossils; hence an 'explosion' of fossils. Not going to get into all the bootstrapping DNA Kimura distance calculation crap, well honestly because I hardly remember a damn thing about it.
However, with that being said, the 'gap' in the fossil record is pretty much now widely acknoweldged that we just simply haven't found all of the fossils, or the fossils didn't preserve well at that point in time or there was a massive catastrophe (like, oh I dunno - maybe an asteroid slamming into the Earth).
The guy who originally wrote this article quite frankly understands very little about the given information concerning evolution. He is essentially implying that *bam* one mutation and we have a heart. This guy, sad to say, is just another twatwaffle that warps information to suite his own needs.
Not that I am a figure of authority, or wait this is the internet so eveybody is an expert on everything!!! Especially so on AToT!!
Anyhow, when I was an undergrad getting my biology degree I did some research on something called the Cambrian/Pre-cambrian Explosion which is essentially the 'missing' fossil record. Called an 'explosion' because there is a point where there are few fossils then there is a point where there is a lot of fossils; hence an 'explosion' of fossils. Not going to get into all the bootstrapping DNA Kimura distance calculation crap, well honestly because I hardly remember a damn thing about it.
However, with that being said, the 'gap' in the fossil record is pretty much now widely acknoweldged that we just simply haven't found all of the fossils, or the fossils didn't preserve well at that point in time or there was a massive catastrophe (like, oh I dunno - maybe an asteroid slamming into the Earth).
The guy who originally wrote this article quite frankly understands very little about the given information concerning evolution. He is essentially implying that *bam* one mutation and we have a heart. This guy, sad to say, is just another twatwaffle that warps information to suite his own needs.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,323
- 12,834
- 136
Discovered only a few years ago, were skeletons of mamoths on a small island near Alaska in the Bering Straight. What was strange about the discovery was that:
a) the bones were about a 1000 years old
b) they were only 1/3 the size of normal mamoths.
They had apparently been living on that island for so long that they had to shrink in order to have enough food to support them. The estimates were that the last ones died out around 500 years ago or so.
Natural selection anyone?
a) the bones were about a 1000 years old
b) they were only 1/3 the size of normal mamoths.
They had apparently been living on that island for so long that they had to shrink in order to have enough food to support them. The estimates were that the last ones died out around 500 years ago or so.
Natural selection anyone?
asm0deus
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2003
- 1,181
- 0
- 76
450,000,000 years ago the transition from vegetable to animal life occurred. This metamorphosis took place in the shallow waters of the sheltered tropic bays and lagoons of the extensive shore lines of the separating continents. And this development, all of which was inherent in the original life patterns, came about gradually. There were many transitional stages between the early primitive vegetable forms of life and the later well-defined animal organisms. Even today the transition slime molds persist, and they can hardly be classified either as plants or as animals
45,000,000 years ago the continental backbones were elevated in association with a very general sinking of the coast lines. Mammalian life was evolving rapidly. A small reptilian, egg-laying type of mammal flourished, and the ancestors of the later kangaroos roamed Australia. Soon there were small horses, fleet-footed rhinoceroses, tapirs with proboscises, primitive pigs, squirrels, lemurs, opossums, and several tribes of monkeylike animals. They were all small, primitive, and best suited to living among the forests of the mountain regions.
30,000,000 years ago the modern types of mammals began to make their appearance. Formerly the mammals had lived for the greater part in the hills, being of the mountainous types; suddenly there began the evolution of the plains or hoofed type, the grazing species, as differentiated from the clawed flesh eaters. These grazers sprang from an undifferentiated ancestor having five toes and forty-four teeth, which perished before the end of the age. Toe evolution did not progress beyond the three-toed stage throughout this period.
1,500,000 years ago the great event of this glacial period was the evolution of primitive man. Slightly to the west of India, on land now under water and among the offspring of Asiatic migrants of the older North American lemur types, the dawn mammals suddenly appeared. These small animals walked mostly on their hind legs, and they possessed large brains in proportion to their size and in comparison with the brains of other animals. In the seventieth generation of this order of life a new and higher group of animals suddenly differentiated. These new mid-mammals -- almost twice the size and height of their ancestors and possessing proportionately increased brain power -- had only well established themselves when the Primates, the third vital mutation, suddenly appeared. (At this same time, a retrograde development within the mid-mammal stock gave origin to the simian ancestry; and from that day to this the human branch has gone forward by progressive evolution, while the simian tribes have remained stationary or have actually retrogressed.)
1,000,000 years ago a mutation within the stock of the progressing Primates suddenly produced two primitive human beings, the actual ancestors of mankind
500,000 years ago, during the fifth advance of the ice, a new development accelerated the course of human evolution. Suddenly and in one generation the six colored races mutated from the aboriginal human stock.
This is just 2 chapters from a very long book that i've been reading. I'm only quoting it cause it seems relevant, and I just finished reading these chapters a couple days ago. I would offer the name of the book, but I would be laughed out of the thread. It does however cover much more history than this and also very far into the future.
45,000,000 years ago the continental backbones were elevated in association with a very general sinking of the coast lines. Mammalian life was evolving rapidly. A small reptilian, egg-laying type of mammal flourished, and the ancestors of the later kangaroos roamed Australia. Soon there were small horses, fleet-footed rhinoceroses, tapirs with proboscises, primitive pigs, squirrels, lemurs, opossums, and several tribes of monkeylike animals. They were all small, primitive, and best suited to living among the forests of the mountain regions.
30,000,000 years ago the modern types of mammals began to make their appearance. Formerly the mammals had lived for the greater part in the hills, being of the mountainous types; suddenly there began the evolution of the plains or hoofed type, the grazing species, as differentiated from the clawed flesh eaters. These grazers sprang from an undifferentiated ancestor having five toes and forty-four teeth, which perished before the end of the age. Toe evolution did not progress beyond the three-toed stage throughout this period.
1,500,000 years ago the great event of this glacial period was the evolution of primitive man. Slightly to the west of India, on land now under water and among the offspring of Asiatic migrants of the older North American lemur types, the dawn mammals suddenly appeared. These small animals walked mostly on their hind legs, and they possessed large brains in proportion to their size and in comparison with the brains of other animals. In the seventieth generation of this order of life a new and higher group of animals suddenly differentiated. These new mid-mammals -- almost twice the size and height of their ancestors and possessing proportionately increased brain power -- had only well established themselves when the Primates, the third vital mutation, suddenly appeared. (At this same time, a retrograde development within the mid-mammal stock gave origin to the simian ancestry; and from that day to this the human branch has gone forward by progressive evolution, while the simian tribes have remained stationary or have actually retrogressed.)
1,000,000 years ago a mutation within the stock of the progressing Primates suddenly produced two primitive human beings, the actual ancestors of mankind
500,000 years ago, during the fifth advance of the ice, a new development accelerated the course of human evolution. Suddenly and in one generation the six colored races mutated from the aboriginal human stock.
This is just 2 chapters from a very long book that i've been reading. I'm only quoting it cause it seems relevant, and I just finished reading these chapters a couple days ago. I would offer the name of the book, but I would be laughed out of the thread. It does however cover much more history than this and also very far into the future.
Tell that to an angry emu. Along with many species of flightless birds, we have the example of
flying squirrels, sugar gliders and various species of bat that survive quite well with varying degrees
of wing structure and span.
I cannot tell you that, but billions of insects manage to do it every year without much help.
Oh and evolution does not favor useful mutations, it favors successive mutations. The premise in
the article seems to be that all the mutations leading up to modern animals were completely random
and seperate from each other. But is it not concievable that mutation "A" helped set the stage for
later mutations "B" and "C", making subsequent mutations somewhat less than random?
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I may not have quite expressed my view on this well. My point is that *something* had to happen over the last few billion years on earth. The probability of any of the outcomes is incredibly remote. Just like my attempted analogy at rolling dice. Starting prior to the rolls, if I say I'm going to roll the dice 52 times, when I get done, you could remark "wow! That's amazing! The odds of that happening were practically zero." Any outcome of intelligent life would probably result in that intelligent life realizing they can't exist because the probability of their existence is zero. And, from some further reading, Borel himself said his law doesn't apply in this situation.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yup, creationist tactics are ussually rather sad, bringing up refuted evidence over and over. sad post, nothing in it was new or ground breaking, just the oldest creationist drivel possible.
they are ignoring ur posts, too much reading i guess
heres a little fun stuff for you guys to read. http://www.flat-earth.org/
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,323
- 12,834
- 136
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, creationist tactics are ussually rather sad, bringing up refuted evidence over and over.
they are ignoring ur posts, too much reading i guess
heres a little fun stuff for you guys to read. http://www.flat-earth.org/
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
And I quote:
Wow. Just.....wow.
this is the way I see it: people say the chances of life evolving are 1 in nearly infinity. Well, if the universe is infinite, then the chance for that to happen must occur at least once. Even if the odds are infinitely small, in an infinite universe, life will evolve, and then the people who don't realize this will bitch about how tiny the odds of that happening are
Just my opinion, I'm not trying to base that as fact. It's simply what I believe.
Just my opinion, I'm not trying to base that as fact. It's simply what I believe.
People can't believe in evolution because they are afraid that the life thay have now is it, all they get. It makes life easier thinking you get an after life or a new life to do what you fvcked up or didn't do in this one. The latest generation has grown up wth a reset button to fix what they messed up, the just can't accept that life doesn't. Death=THE END, so quit denying it and just live your life to the fullest.
From Sci Am.:
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Homerboy
Lifer
- Mar 1, 2000
- 30,890
- 5,001
- 126
So why cant one make this life easier on themselves if they find comfort and solice in beleiving they have a 2nd chance. If, as you suggest, the 2nd chance doesnt exist, they're belief/faith will have no consequence at all, because "THE END" will be just that... the end. No harm no foul in believing in an after life at all. If there is, you're ahead of the game, if there's not, you'll never even freaking know, becuase... well... you'll be dead.
The Bible says the word of God is true, and is says that the Bible is the word of God, so the Bible must be true!
Kissing Hank's Ass rox btw
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter